The only way to create equality economically is socialism which is a bad idea. Also welfare is supposed to do this but is unconstitutional:"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

Now, social equality (like blacks and whites) is a good thing. He is referring to economic equality, I believe, do he is fairly correct.

At 2/2/2012 9:56:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:The only way to create equality economically is socialism which is a bad idea. Also welfare is supposed to do this but is unconstitutional:"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

Now, social equality (like blacks and whites) is a good thing. He is referring to economic equality, I believe, do he is fairly correct.

Economic equality yes.

Economic equality is a joke becaue people don't have equal abilities. Some people are more gifted than others and they will get more money as they should.

Because my definition of upper part of society includes those who actually attempt to get by. This means that I would take a single mother working 3 jobs to feed her kids as part of the upper society, and I take Paris Hilton and such as part of the losers.

The single mother is elite.Paris Hilton is a serf in my eyes.

It's not about reciprocation, it's just all about me,
a sycophantic, prophetic, Socratic junkie wannabe.
- The 1975, "The Sound"

At 2/2/2012 9:56:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:The only way to create equality economically is socialism which is a bad idea.

I thought of this story when i read your post.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

At 2/2/2012 9:56:07 PM, 16kadams wrote:The only way to create equality economically is socialism which is a bad idea.

I thought of this story when i read your post.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

I've already refuted this idiotic story. I don't believe this story is true since an economics professor wouldn't be dumb enough to not understand socialism. Making sure everyone has an equal wage is not even close to socialism. Plus if you actually look at his policies, you will find that Obama is far from socialist.

At 2/2/2012 9:56:52 PM, 16kadams wrote:You forget the rich make the jobs...

Where are the fvcking jobs they were supposed to make with the cuts we gave them?!

Probably got dragged down the hole by the regulations given them, and the rational expectations of future taxes for Obamacare given them.

How would regulations stop job creation?

Raise cost of doing business, forbid certain innovations, make you divert money from growth sectors to lawyers... How the hell could you think they wouldn't?

Because they have so much extra money already.

That "extra" money (not to be rude but who are you to define how much of someone else's money is extra?) doesn't just go to them, it helps employ others as well... Higher taxes + more regulations = less employees

Your almost certainly richer than me, and you don't need that money, so I deserve it.

Though I disagree with her points she's talking about taking money from the super rich. She isn't super rich. Also she's talking about doing good/productive things with that money (welfare, education). So though I disagree with her points your analogy, if it can be called that, is faulty.

Your almost certainly richer than me, and you don't need that money, so I deserve it.

Though I disagree with her points she's talking about taking money from the super rich. She isn't super rich. Also she's talking about doing good/productive things with that money (welfare, education). So though I disagree with her points your analogy, if it can be called that, is faulty.